CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001178/SG/14433
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001178/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Kiran Mehta
P. Box No. 712,
P. O. Sector - 19,
Chandigarh
Respondent : Dr. Lalit Verma
PIO & Registrar-cum-Secretary
Central Council of Homoeopathy,
Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Ayum
Homeopathy, Anusandhan Bhavan ,
No.61- 65, Institutional Area Opp. 'D' Block, Janakpuri,
New Delhi - 110 0 58
RTI application filed on : 29/04/2010
PIO replied on : 18/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : 11/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 29/10/2010
Q.No Query Reply of PIO
1. Please provide a copy of letter No. 15- Concerned PIO did not reply to the
9/2007/CCH-388 dated 08/04/2009 along with query later sent on a letter demanding
annexure written to Medical Council of India. additional fee of Rs. 42.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The concerned PIO did not reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been furnished in spite of paying the charges.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Kiran Mehta on video conference from NIC-Chandigarh Studio;
Respondent: Dr. Lalit Verma, PIO & Registrar-cum-Secretary;
The Respondent states that the complete information was sent to the Appellant on 18/02/2011.
The appellant admits that she has received the complete information sent by the PIO on
18/02/2011.The RTI application had been filed on 17/07/2010 and the PIO sent a letter seeking
additional fees of Rs.42/- on 18/06/2010 much after the lapse of the 30 day period mandated in the
RTI Act. Despite this the Appellant paid the some of Rs.42/- on 05/07/2010, however the 21 page
information was only sent to the Appellant on 18/02/2011.
It is clear that the Appellatn has been unnecessarily harassed by the Public Authority in getting the
information and had to file the second appeal. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is
socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is
far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public
resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of
complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of
standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only
compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in
improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.
In view of this the Commission under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation of
Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by her and getting the information very
late.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant.
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- as compensation is sent to the
Appellant before 15 November 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 September 2011 at
4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DIS)